Tuesday, August 16, 2005

TEN MAJOR FLAWS OF EVOLUTION

I came across this page while doing some research on the internet. As it documents a few of evolution's flaws, I decided to post it.-Eric

TEN MAJOR FLAWS OF EVOLUTION - REVISEDby Randy Alcorn (with additional editing by Jim Darnall). I wrote the following article many years ago, but it needed to be thoroughly revised and updated. Thanks to Jim Darnall for adding some important new information.

The complexity of living systems could never evolve by chance—they had to be designed and created. A system that is irreducibly complex has precise components working together to perform the basic function of the system. (A mousetrap is a simple example.) If any part of that system were missing, the system would cease to function. Gradual additions could not account for the origin of such a system. It would have to come together fully formed and integrated. Many living systems exhibit this (vision, blood-clotting, etc.). When you look at a watch, you assume there was a watchmaker. A watch is too complex to "happen" by chance. Yet such living systems are almost infinitely more complex than a watch. They could not be random—they simply had to be designed and created.

The high information content of DNA could only have come from intelligence. Information science teaches that in all known cases, complex information requires an intelligent message sender. This is at the core of the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence (SETI). DNA is by far the most compact information storage/retrieval system known. A pinhead of DNA has a billion times more information capacity than a 4-gigabit hard drive. Ironically, evolutionists scan the heavens using massive radio telescopes hoping for relatively simple signal patterns that might have originated in outer space, all the while ignoring the incredibly complex evidence of superior intelligence built into every human's DNA. While we're waiting to hear signs of intelligence behind interstellar communication, we're ignoring those built into us.

No mutation that increases genetic information has ever been discovered. Mutations which increase genetic information would be the raw material necessary for evolution. To get from "amoeba" to "man" would require a massive net increase in information. There are many examples of supposed evolution given by proponents. Variation within a species (finch beak, for example), bacteria which acquire antibiotic resistance, people born with an extra chromosome, etc. However, none of the examples demonstrate the development of new information. Instead, they demonstrate either preprogrammed variation, multiple copies of existing information, or even loss of information (natural selection and adaptation involve loss of information). The total lack of any such evidence refutes evolutionary theory.

Evolution flies directly in the face of entropy, the second law of thermodynamics. This law of physics states that all systems, whether open or closed, have a tendency to disorder (or "the least energetic state"). There are some special cases where local order can increase, but this is at the expense of greater disorder elsewhere. Raw energy cannot generate the complex systems in living things, or the information required to build them. Undirected energy just speeds up destruction. Yet, evolution is a building-up process, suggesting that things tend to become more complex and advanced over time. This is directly opposed to the law of entropy.

There is a total lack of undisputed examples (fossilized or living) of the millions of transitional forms ("missing links") required for evolution to be true. Evolution does not require a single missing link, but innumerable ones. We should be surrounded by a zoo of transitional forms that cannot be categorized as one particular life form. But we don't see this—there are different kinds of dogs, but all are clearly dogs. The fossils show different sizes of horses, but all are clearly horses. None is on the verge of being some other life form. The fossil record shows complex fossilized life suddenly appearing, and there are major gaps between the fossilized "kinds." Darwin acknowledged that if his theory were true, it would require millions of transitional forms. He believed they would be found in fossil records. They haven't been.

Pictures of ape-to-human "missing links" are extremely subjective and based on evolutionists' already-formed assumptions. Often they are simply contrived. The series of pictures or models that show progressive development from a little monkey to modern man are an insult to scientific research. These are often based on fragmentary remains that can be "reconstructed" a hundred different ways. The fact is, many supposed "ape-men" are very clearly apes. Evolutionists now admit that other so-called "ape-men" would be able to have children by modern humans, which makes them the same species as humans. The main species said to bridge this gap, Homo habilis, is thought by many to be a mixture of ape and human fossils. In other words, the "missing link" (in reality there would have to be millions of them) is still missing. The body hair and the blank expressions of sub-humans in these models doesn't come from the bones, but the assumptions of the artist. Virtually nothing can be determined about hair and the look in someone's eyes based on a few old bones.

The dating methods that evolutionists rely upon to assign millions and billions of years to rocks are very inconsistent and based on unproven (and questionable) assumptions. Dating methods that use radioactive decay to determine age assume that radioactive decay rates have always been constant. Yet, research has shown that decay rates can change according to the chemical environment of the material being tested. In fact, decay rates have been increased in the laboratory by a factor of a billion. All such dating methods also assume a closed system—that no isotopes were gained or lost by the rock since it formed. It's common knowledge that hydrothermal waters, at temperatures of only a few hundred degrees Centigrade, can create an open system where chemicals move easily from one rock system to another. In fact, this process is one of the excuses used by evolutionists to reject dates that don't fit their expectations. What's not commonly known is that the majority of dates are not even consistent for the same rock. Furthermore, 20th century lava flows often register dates in the millions to billions of years. There are many different ways of dating the earth, and many of them point to an earth much too young for evolution to have had a chance. All age-dating methods rely on unprovable assumptions.

Uses continue to be found for supposedly "leftover" body structures. Evolutionists point to useless and vestigial (leftover) body structures as evidence of evolution. However, it's impossible to prove that an organ is useless, because there's always the possibility that a use may be discovered in the future. That's been the case for over 100 supposedly useless organs which are now known to be essential. Scientists continue to discover uses for such organs. It's worth noting that even if an organ were no longer needed (e.g., eyes of blind creatures in caves), it would prove devolution not evolution. The evolutionary hypothesis needs to find examples of developing organs—those that are increasing in complexity.

Evolution is said to have begun by spontaneous generation—a concept ridiculed by biology. When I was a sophomore in high school, and a brand new Christian, my biology class spent the first semester discussing how ignorant people used to believe that garbage gave rise to rats, and raw meat produced maggots. This now disproven concept was called "spontaneous generation." Louis Pasteur proved that life only comes from life—this is the law of biogenesis. The next semester we studied evolution, where we learned that the first living cell came from a freak combination of nonliving material (where that nonliving material came from we were not told). "Chemical Evolution" is just another way of saying "spontaneous generation"—life comes from nonlife. Evolution is therefore built on a fallacy science long ago proved to be impossible.

Evolutionists admit that the chances of evolutionary progress are extremely low. Yet, they believe that given enough time, the apparently impossible becomes possible. If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive.

The scientific method can only test existing data—it cannot draw conclusions about origins. Micro-evolution, changes within a species on a small scale, is observable. But evidence for macro-evolution, changes transcending species, is conspicuous by its absence. To prove the possibility of anything, science must be able to reproduce exact original conditions. Even when it proves something is possible, it doesn't mean it therefore happened. Since no man was there to record or even witness the beginning, conclusions must be made only on the basis of interpreting presently available information. If I put on rose-colored glasses, I will always see red. I accept the Bible's teaching on creation, and see the evidence as being consistently supportive of that belief. When dealing with origins, everyone who believes anything does so by faith, whether faith in God, the Bible, himself, modern science, or the dependability of his own subjective interpretations of existing data. I would rather put my faith in God's revealed Word.

85 comments:

2LOT arguements always tip me off to someone who is out of their league in these debates. Of course, you are probably aware of the main rebuttal about open and closed systems. While that arguement is correct it misses a stronger point: entropy is neither a measure of spatial disorder or complexity. So to argue that the 2LOT forbids evolution is wrong because you start out with a false premise of what the 2LOT means. Entropy has a rigorous definition in statistical physics (it is proportional to the logarithm of the number of microstates of a macrostate for the microcanonical ensemble) and 'entropy as disorder' is only an analogy--not a definition. It is an analogy that really only seems to work in the limit of there being no interaction between the particles in the system (ie an ideal gas). Since many systems are strongly interacting (like biological systems for example) one can see in general the "entropy as disorder" analogy doesn't work so well. If you really want to understand this stuff and have an informed opinion you need to study thermodynamics and especially statistical mechanics. Dan Styer's lecture notes look especially good. Chapter 2 has a long section on the qualitative nature of entropy that is particularly insightfull.

Hey S, I appreciate the comment. I haven't taken physics yet, so I'm not going to be able to debate you on this issue, but here's a link which discusses entropy, open systems and the anti-evolution argument. Like I said, I'd love to discuss it, but it's way over my head right now. In a year perhaps...

Bruiser, thanks for visiting. I would like for you to keep in mind that although I support Bush, we are discussing evolution here, not the war in Iraq. I'd appreciate it if you would try to stay on topic. Thanks.

There isn't one shred of evidence even suggesting the possibility that the Earth was created in 6 days, or that it was created sometime in the late Stone Age.

If you hadn't noticed:

We're discussing Evolution here, not ID. You might want to keep that in mind.

You want evidence? The fossil layer itself is testimony to a massive global flood approximately 4-4.5K years ago.

Besides, ID is a grouping for explanations of life, just like Naturalism is a grouping for explanations of life. Creationism is under ID just like Darwinism is under Naturalism.

Why don't you try bolstering your side for a change?

I could say the same thing to you. . . .

The only thing I've heard so far about your "bolstering" your side is that it's "98% complete". How convincing.

Tell us about all the evidence that supports ID instead of poking small weak holes in a theory that is 98% complete.

So what's complete about evolution? Also, are you talking about natural selection and mutation theory, or are you talking about the unprovable speculation that those two somehow combined to form life millions of years ago when there was no toady or froggy to observe it???

Major flaw of Gravity:You can't see it.

Hmmmm. . . . I can't see Toady; so I guess he doesn't exist.

For the sake of our more informed readers, I'd like to point out that Gravity is a scientifically observable fact concerning the present.

On the other hand, Darwinism is the unobservable speculation that natural selection and mutations came together to form life in the past.

You're correct in pointing out that most people who use 2LOT arguments don't understand what they're really all about. I don't profess to be an expert on the subject, but I have read through many articles and spoken with many PhDs about this.

So to argue that the 2LOT forbids evolution is wrong because you start out with a false premise of what the 2LOT means.

Absolutely. 2LOT no more forbids progressive changes in the genome than it forbids water from freezing.

'entropy is disorder' is only an analogy--not a definition.

Not exactly. It is an example, not an analogy or a definition. Overall molecular disorder within a closed system is an example of the law of 2LOT and increasing entropy.

Since many systems are strongly interacting (like biological systems for example) one can see in general the "entropy as disorder" analogy doesn't work so well.

Biological systems do interact quite a bit, but we aren't talking about biological systems as a whole; we're talking about the specific chromosomes in the genome. By its very nature, information subsystems are super-closed systems (each "bit" of information is outside of and non-interactive with those "next to" it). Therefore, by the 2LOT, the information level/complexity within a specific chromosome cannot increase without a subsequent information decrease within the same complete closed system. This is why the 2LOT does in a way forbid evolutionary process, unless you can come up with a way for the information subsystem in the chromosome to decrease without losing functionality.

Of course, this is arguable (isn't that what we are doing right not?), but until such an example of genetic entropy balance is postulated, it remains a major flaw of evolution.

As is Evolution. Fossil records also show evidence of extinct animals from 3 million years ago, as well as fossils from early man.

Even most Christians today believe that the "flood" was concentrated around the Middle East and thus created the Black Sea. If you are actually suggesting that Noah really took one of every animal into the Ark how did he put the Komodo Dragon back in Indonesia, how did he put Mastodons back in N. America and how did he put the Dodo bird back on Mauritius?

Maybe you are referring to fossil evidence of a cataclysmic impact 65 million years ago.

KANSAS CITY, KS—As the debate over the teaching of evolution in public schools continues, a new controversy over the science curriculum arose Monday in this embattled Midwestern state. Scientists from the Evangelical Center For Faith-Based Reasoning are now asserting that the long-held "theory of gravity" is flawed, and they have responded to it with a new theory of Intelligent Falling.

Above: Rev. Gabriel Burdett (left) explains Intelligent Falling. "Things fall not because they are acted upon by some gravitational force, but because a higher intelligence, 'God' if you will, is pushing them down," said Gabriel Burdett, who holds degrees in education, applied Scripture, and physics from Oral Roberts University.

Burdett added: "Gravity—which is taught to our children as a law—is founded on great gaps in understanding. The laws predict the mutual force between all bodies of mass, but they cannot explain that force. Isaac Newton himself said, 'I suspect that my theories may all depend upon a force for which philosophers have searched all of nature in vain.' Of course, he is alluding to a higher power."

Founded in 1987, the ECFR is the world's leading institution of evangelical physics, a branch of physics based on literal interpretation of the Bible.

According to the ECFR paper published simultaneously this week in the International Journal Of Science and the adolescent magazine God's Word For Teens!, there are many phenomena that cannot be explained by secular gravity alone, including such mysteries as how angels fly, how Jesus ascended into Heaven, and how Satan fell when cast out of Paradise.

The ECFR, in conjunction with the Christian Coalition and other Christian conservative action groups, is calling for public-school curriculums to give equal time to the Intelligent Falling theory. They insist they are not asking that the theory of gravity be banned from schools, but only that students be offered both sides of the issue "so they can make an informed decision."

"We just want the best possible education for Kansas' kids," Burdett said.

Proponents of Intelligent Falling assert that the different theories used by secular physicists to explain gravity are not internally consistent. Even critics of Intelligent Falling admit that Einstein's ideas about gravity are mathematically irreconcilable with quantum mechanics. This fact, Intelligent Falling proponents say, proves that gravity is a theory in crisis.

"Let's take a look at the evidence," said ECFR senior fellow Gregory Lunsden."In Matthew 15:14, Jesus says, 'And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch.' He says nothing about some gravity making them fall—just that they will fall. Then, in Job 5:7, we read, 'But mankind is born to trouble, as surely as sparks fly upwards.' If gravity is pulling everything down, why do the sparks fly upwards with great surety? This clearly indicates that a conscious intelligence governs all falling."

Critics of Intelligent Falling point out that gravity is a provable law based on empirical observations of natural phenomena. Evangelical physicists, however, insist that there is no conflict between Newton's mathematics and Holy Scripture.

"Closed-minded gravitists cannot find a way to make Einstein's general relativity match up with the subatomic quantum world," said Dr. Ellen Carson, a leading Intelligent Falling expert known for her work with the Kansan Youth Ministry. "They've been trying to do it for the better part of a century now, and despite all their empirical observation and carefully compiled data, they still don't know how."

"Traditional scientists admit that they cannot explain how gravitation is supposed to work," Carson said. "What the gravity-agenda scientists need to realize is that 'gravity waves' and 'gravitons' are just secular words for 'God can do whatever He wants.'"

Some evangelical physicists propose that Intelligent Falling provides an elegant solution to the central problem of modern physics.

"Anti-falling physicists have been theorizing for decades about the 'electromagnetic force,' the 'weak nuclear force,' the 'strong nuclear force,' and so-called 'force of gravity,'" Burdett said. "And they tilt their findings toward trying to unite them into one force. But readers of the Bible have already known for millennia what this one, unified force is: His name is Jesus."

Fossil records also show evidence of extinct animals from 3 million years ago, as well as fossils from early man.

Before I rebutt this, I would like to say that the fossil record is not evidence for evolution. If evolution was to have taken place, we would expect the fossil record contain more missing links than modern species of animals. As a matter of fact, this is essential to the theory of evolution. But, according to the Scientific American, "Evolutionists cannot point to any transitional fossils—creatures that are half reptile and half bird, for instance."

Listen to what Charled Darwin said concernig this problem:

"Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory."

Of course, Darwin expected, or rather hoped, that with technology a new means of finding fossils would arise that would fix this problem. Guess what? A century and a half later, evolutionists have only a small handful of very controversial, supposed missing links.

Ok, what is the "evidence" for extinct animals that died out 3 MYA? Is the date based an a chart created by evolutionists to bolster their theory, although they really have no idea how old anything in the fossil record is anyway, and often contradict themselves or change the dates around to help everything fit together? Evolutionists will assign or change any age to anything if it will appear to help their theory.

As far as fossils from early man, are you referring to such hoaxes as the Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, and Homo habilis, to name a few? Or others which are based on a few small bone fragments, and are far from evidence for evolution?

Even most Christians today believe that the "flood" was concentrated around the Middle East and thus created the Black Sea. If you are actually suggesting that Noah really took one of every animal into the Ark how did he put the Komodo Dragon back in Indonesia, how did he put Mastodons back in N. America and how did he put the Dodo bird back on Mauritius?

As I said in reply to your comment concerning the same issue on Evolution: A Disproven Hypothesis,

"The earth at the time of the flood was most likely a mass of connected land, a single continent, surrounded by the ocean. After the flood, the earth began slowly shifting apart, separating the land mass into the continents we know today. In case you don't know, this is called plate tectonics. Ask any evolutionist, and he will tell you the same thing, though he will most likely believe that it was a much longer process."

Maybe you are referring to fossil evidence of a cataclysmic impact 65 million years ago.

I don't think so.

Concerning the article you found on "Intelligent Falling", all I have to say is that I believe it was written by anti-creationists to poke fun at the thought of ID being taught in public schools, but if not, then the writers are either seriously confused, or outright stupid.

Thank you for showing me I should only believe in things that are "emperical" and "observable". Since I have never seen Jesus maybe I should quit believing in him as well.

Ok, anonymous, no one ever said that you should only believe in things that are empiracal or observable, did they? So where did you get that from? The weird "Intelligent Falling" article posted by Toady used the word "empiracal", but's that's all. I definitely don't recommend you giving up on Jesus simply because he has not visibly appeared to you.

The following is a quote from David:

"We can't observe history. That doesn't mean we shouldn't believe in it. Darwinism deals with history. Creationism deals with history. Don't confuse history with science; scientific observations made today can be used to formulate possible ideas about historical events, but science itself must be observable and repeatable.

I would love to hear an Evolutionist's explanation for polystrate fossils, the Cambrian Explosian, and the lack of missing links. I'd love to hear a defense of their use of anecdotal evidence to "prove" Evolution. All these things they can't account for, and yet they claim Evolution is a "98% complete" theory. If so, then that's a mighty big 2% that's incomplete.

Cambrian period is proof of evolution and disproves Genesis. Why is there small amounts of simple, mostly single celled life forms in the Precambrian period and NO HUMAN FOSSILS and then all of the sudden in the Cambrian period there are several multicell and complex organisms with vertebrates, eyes and then much later trees(which again disproves Genesis)and of course mammals don't really appear until after the dinosaurs, which were post-Cambrian (again disproving Genesis).

It's funny how you joke about the missing 1-2% in evolution and it takes you several posts, several websites and several discussions to try to poke a few holes in evolution when I can poke a 1000 holes in creationism with one sentence.

You can’t sit here and talk about the 2% that is not known about evolution without telling us how it all really happened.

I agree it makes it look like you are onto something when you can ask for a missing link between the pre-Cambrian and Cambrian period but that is such a small gap; try finding the missing links in Genesis, there are plenty.

Why is there small amounts of simple, mostly single celled life forms in the Precambrian period and NO HUMAN FOSSILS and then all of the sudden in the Cambrian period there are several multicell and complex organisms with vertebrates, eyes and then much later trees (which again disproves Genesis) and of course mammals don't really appear until after the dinosaurs, which were post-Cambrian (again disproving Genesis).

Simple. Darwinists, who start with a long-ages presupposition, see strata layers as being laid down one after another over long periods of time. Creationists, who start with a Genesis presupposition, see strata layers as sedimentary layers laid down rapidly during a massive flood.

It just so happens that what evolutionists would rate as "less complex" almost always are bottom-dwelling organisms or creatures that would have trouble escaping the gigantic underwater sedimentary slides caused by flooding.

Larger creatures, especially those that dwell on land, would survive on the surface of the churning waters or on higher ground while creatures already on the ocean floor or slow creatures would be buried first.

Envision, just for a second, that there is a huge worldwide flood happening right now. Single-celled creatures on the ocean floor would be buried first. Trees and large land creatures, ripped from their posts by roaring rapids, churn about on the surface while smaller animals with less surface area are quickly buried.

Meanwhile, primates and birds quickly escape to higher ground as the waters surge upwards. Such "complex" creatures that can more easily escape the flood are buried last, while those creatures that dwell in or near the water are buried first.

Makes sense if you will consider the possibility of a global flood, doesn't it?

It's funny how you joke about the missing 1-2% in evolution and it takes you several posts, several websites and several discussions to try to poke a few holes in evolution when I can poke a 1000 holes in creationism with one sentence.

One run-on sentence. As you can see, the "1000 holes" you just boasted about never even existed if you allow the possibility that there actually was a global flood. Remember that the strata layers represent burial order, not age.

Also notice that this very post we are commenting on pokes several major holes in evolution, as did nearly every post before it.

You can’t sit here and talk about the 2% that is not known about evolution

I'm not, you are.

without telling us how it all really happened.

I just did. Strata layers represent burial order, not age or millions of years.

I agree it makes it look like you are onto something when you can ask for a missing link between the pre-Cambrian and Cambrian period but that is such a small gap;

According to Darwinism, we should not observe any species distinction in the fossil record, because the supposed evolutionary progress is constant.

try finding the missing links in Genesis, there are plenty.

I'm sorry, but the burden of proof is on YOU to supply inconsistencies in Genesis. And please don't requote that idiotic argument concerning the supposed "dual" creation of Adam. On second thought, do. I'd enjoy refuting it.

Who, exactly, is friend Falcarius? Could you supply a link so that I could examine this supposed missing link (there shouldn't really be any link at all between reptiles and birds according to evolution; it should just be an unbroken progression).

Could you yank open your mind just a crack, Toady? It might help you in your life just a little. Know what I mean?

Elbert Belk IV Dear evolutionists: you are avoiding the fact that the Ms River is dumping over300 cubic yards of mud into the Gulf of Mexico per year, enlarging the delta . If the earth were truly 4.55 billion years old, imagine how big the delta would be now. It has been calculated that if the world were ONLY 120,000 years old the delta would have extended to the North Pole!! Also,according to our astronomical observations, galaxies similar to ours experience a supernova every 25 years. The dust and gas from such explosions usually expand outward quickly, and remain visible for 1,000,000 years. Yet, the nearby parts of our galaxy only contain 200 supernova remnants!! Through careful and generous (to evoltionists) calculations, we can see that our galaxy is only about 7,000 years old. Are these flaws in evolution the 2% gap that you have mentioned?

I think that it is unnecessary for religion or politics to come up at all. That is obvioiusly not the point of his article, so why dwell on it. Intelligent Design mentions nothing about God, Jesus, or Noah for that matter, it just brings up the extreme flaws, holes, and improbability of macroevolution. And what's this whole 6 days thing, he mentioned nothing of creationism.

Even most Christians today believe that the "flood" was concentrated around the Middle East and thus created the Black Sea. If you are actually suggesting that Noah really took one of every animal into the Ark how did he put the Komodo Dragon back in Indonesia, how did he put Mastodons back in N. America and how did he put the Dodo bird back on Mauritius?

Adam didnt go around the world catching animals his whole life, as this is obviously impossible within a short lifetime. As described in the Bible, God brought the animals to him. Im sure if God can bring animals to him, he can get them to go back to where they came from afterwards.

Thanks, im doing a research essay for college on this topic and your statments have been very helpful =)

heres some more intresting facts:

-The sun pushes particles of dust from space (about 100,000 a day) away from the solar system. If the solar system is “billions of years old”; how come there is still billions of particles of dust in space?

-The human eye will not work without being fully developed. If there was one single flaw it would not work. How could an animal survived without an eye for the “millions of years” it took to “evolve” the eye?

-There isn´t enough soil layers for the Earth to be “millions of years”, Even in a desert soil will build up. But there are barely any soil layers. If the soil fell into the ocean, we would have no ocean because the dirt would cover all the water. The Earth builds up about 1/8 of an inch of soil each year. Now if you use the date that the evolutionists put on the Earth, about 100 million years, you get 2 miles high of dirt! That's 4 times higher than Mount Everest!

-How can life originate from dead chemicals? Evolutionists believe that rain fell on the earth, turning rocks into "soup", which somehow turned into bacteria.

-In DNA A has to go with T, and G has to go with C. The probability of getting a match is 1 out of 4. Already that is 25% chances that DNA could occur by itself. Add 4 to that because you want to see what the chances of both combos´ occurring by chance are. 1 out of 8; about 12%. Now DNA has more than 1 million “rungs”. It would be very favorable to evolution to just use 1 million rungs. 1 out of 8,000,000 chances evolution would occur; about 0.00001%. DNA could not occur by chance.

taken from: http://www.angelfire.com/tn2/EAStrong88/EvolutionFlaws.html)

This is amazing how many people are involved in this evolution debate. Check the science section at diggs - everyone is fighting. The thing is that I have never seen anyone change his mind after such a discussion.

"The thing is that I have never seen anyone change his mind after such a discussion."

I did. The creationists and IDers have put forth very strong, logical, scientific arguments against macro-evolution. The macro-evolutionists, here and elsewhere, have no answers to the creationists' and IDers' objections, leading me to believe that they have no good rebuttals.

It is the macro-evolutionists that seem to be the illogical, "religious nuts" in this debate. They are the ones that seem to be doing the indoctrination into a kooky belief system. If you have real proof to the contrary, let's see it.

-anonymus- if God created the earth/space/universe, what then created God?

you are a human, yes? you live in our universe that exists in 3D of space, and (origonaly unnoticed by humans, and probably unnoticed by earlier humans (i'm not debating how early) and animals) the dimension of time. now if God created everything, he created these 4 dimensions, therefore existed before time, therefore existed independantly of time (i know, doesn't make sence; existing independantly of time). the idea of being created, means that it had start on the linear time graph, but if God created the "time graph" how could He be He have a beginning on it; He existed before time did. i cannot prove this, but you just try to DISprove it

Where do you go to school? Are there many atheiests there? Your writing style sounds very much like that of an agnostic, which I find humorous since your position on this issue seems to indicate otherwise.

Perhaps it was the question: "You are human, yes?"Or maybe it was the various grammatical issues with your writing style (such as the careless use of (double) parentheses and run-on sentences while at the same time almost correctly using a semi-colon). More than likely, however, it was the many uses of the word "therefore".

Enough joking.

The question was who (or what) created God?

Are you trying to say that if God created natural laws, he cannot be defined in their terms since they are His creation and He existed before their existence (i.e., God can't create Himself)?

Regardless, the question of who created God is a stupid one since it doesn't prove anything for either side of the discussion; saying that God has always been there is no different than claiming that the universe and its ability to provide life have always been there.

There is one problem with the latter admission, however: there is scientific evidence that the universe did have a beginning, and the Big Bang Theory was actually developed as a way to compromise this evidence to the evolutionary faith without letting a Creator into the big picture.

Personally, I understand the difficulty in believing that a Thing (call it "God", "Creator", or what you will) intelligently designed the universe and the life that it contains.

However, I find it much harder to believe that a tiny speck was floating around one day in the middle of "nothingness" and somehow managed to explode into our universe of innumerable galaxies.

Even more difficult is accepting the belief that random chemicals somehow reacted to create a living form that not only could reproduce, but also become more complex and functional over time through quick sequences of exposure to usually harmful or lethal substances which supposedly caused beneficial changes in the cellular or chemical structure of the organism through mutations.

I've always stood in wonder of people who wanted to believe something so much that they would surrender basic reason. People of the evolutionist faith are no exception; of all the religions today, Evolutionism is probably the one which requires the most faith.

After all, the claim that "something came from nothing" is more absurd than [a religion goes here], which states that [God/god/godess name goes here] created life.

Wait a minute, so it is better to simply believe God contacted a few people and dictated what happened to them? It is easier to believe God can violate his own laws of nature to make these scenerios valid? You're right, it is not possible that a group of men made up some stories a couple thousand years ago in an attempt to explain why things were the way they were. If Genesis is to be dragged into this, then you must also drag in the rest of the bible. For example, why were women treated as second class citizens at this time? Well, that's because God made Adam first and the woman was created because he was bored. Where did all of the animals come from? Well Adam was bored and God made them. Boy, God used to be a regular chatty Kathy and extremely direct back then. Then God got mad and decided to take his marbles and go home. Please consider that religion is created to control people with threats of God's wrath. This practice is still used today through every organized religious group in the world. Science is an attempt to explain why things are the way they are. It doesn't mean a higher power doesn't exist, it just means that we aren't going to put much creedence into stories people wrote two thousand years ago. Should we now take into account every single religious idea of how we got here? Good luck. It amazes me how we argue what the judeo/christain God did vs. scienceHow did we arrive that this particular religion has the best idea? Is it because it is so popular? Well, so were Hitler's ideas at one point, but I don't hear anyone pushing his whole "arian nation" ideas as possible fact anymore either. Science is a search for the truth without the need for stories and tall tales. I applaud truth seekers for criticizing evolution, as it should be until it is solid. But please, please stop with the flood stuff, the eden stuff, the wine into water stuff, the parting of the sea stuff and various other magic tricks that no one has seen since.

One run-on sentence. As you can see, the "1000 holes" you just boasted about never even existed if you allow the possibility that there actually was a global flood. Remember that the strata layers represent burial order, not age.If this were the case, why are there marine creatures in the strata layers. Logic would suggest that a fish would be relatively undisturbed by a 40 day global flood and thus should not be present in the fossil record. I will accept that the theory of evolution is open for discussion and scrutiny. However, if you expect to disprove that theory by advancing a literal interpretation of the Bible as an alternate theory you are going nowhere.

I would modify "Point 9" because while it touches on an important component of the argument (life from non-life), it fails to do so from the Evolutionist's premise.

Evolutionist theory centers on mutations and natural selection, BUT anything that is not alive cannot be selected as preferable. [This is similar to the argument on irreducible complexity, but in actuality is quite a different statement.]

I am sorry I cannot cite more specifics for these numbers, but in general, the number of years necessary to randomly produce the right combination of Amino Acids, such that the correct number of Complex Proteins (Building Blocks) are produced is orders of magnitude longer than the claimed age of the Universe.

Bottom line - even if one was to CONCEDE evolution once the most primitive life form was "available", you'd never get to the point of forming the (unalive) building blocks out of the primordial "SOUP"

With all due respect to all religionsand all those who follow them, respectively.

Religion, as a support (be that spiritual, mental, etc) for the person, is good. Religion as an excuse to do or undo something, is bad, and a mistake.

Religion is a dagger lodged very deep into the path of Evolution and Progress.It is because of religion that we live to die in vain the other day.

It has been the excuse for wars, persecutions, racism and many more things that for "advanced species" like us, have taken us to the very brink of destruction and has made our only home, the Earth, a hell.

For all of the people who think that religion has flaws, most do (religions) but there is only one true religion, christianity, there is alot of evidence to prove that Christs death and ressurection happened (reliable non chriistian witnesses testifying that jesus actually died and rose again josephus flavius ( i think),the bible) things lioke that. , i have all the evidence i need, jesus is here working in my life. I was a major sinner, but he brought me back to him, if he hadnt taken me in i would still be the bad sinner i was. There is no way, that i can look at my life before, and my life now and say that there is no God. There is no way that you can convince me that what i did was on my own will power. It is just not possible. And also, if you dont believ in any religion, what is the point in life, having fun and partying? Why are there laws then, we might as well do away with them as they just impede our 'fun'. The fun of the world is not actually fun, the only lasting source of joy, is jesus christ, my lord and savior!

Wait a minute, so it is better to simply believe God contacted a few people and dictated what happened to them? It is easier to believe God can violate his own laws of nature to make these scenerios valid? You're right, it is not possible that a group of men made up some stories a couple thousand years ago in an attempt to explain why things were the way they were. If Genesis is to be dragged into this, then you must also drag in the rest of the bible. For example, why were women treated as second class citizens at this time? Well, that's because God made Adam first and the woman was created because he was bored. Where did all of the animals come from? Well Adam was bored and God made them. (the bible says that God created them FIRST) Boy, God used to be a regular chatty Kathy and extremely direct back then. Then God got mad He did not get mad, he punishd them

and decided to take his marbles and go home. Please consider that religion is created to control people with threats of God's wrath.

Sorry but um dude, if that were the case id have quit long ago

This practice is still used today through every organized religious group in the world. Science is an attempt to explain why things are the way they are. It doesn't mean a higher power doesn't exist, it just means that we aren't going to put much creedence into stories people wrote two thousand years ago.

so wee shouldnt believe anything about the romans, ore medeival tiems, or anything that scientists say was billions of years old (billions is higher than 2000 in case you didnt know) Should we now take into account every single religious idea of how we got here? Good luck. It amazes me how we argue what the judeo/christain God did vs. scienceHow did we arrive that this particular religion has the best idea?Well it is the only true religion... Is it because it is so popular? What makes it more popular than say buddism Well maybe just maybe because it is the truth!

Well, so were Hitler's ideas at one point, but I don't hear anyone pushing his whole "arian nation" ideas as possible fact anymore either. Science is a search for the truth without the need for stories and tall tales. Tall tales? I applaud truth seekers for criticizing evolution, as it should be until it is solid. (never) But please, please stop with the flood stuff, the eden stuff, the wine into water stuff, the parting of the sea stuff and various other magic tricks that no one has seen since .

The reason noone has seen them since is becuase Jesus has already come, there is no more need for prophets and proof that they are prophets, and such, we have the bible, which i beleive is inspired by god.

I wanted to comment on some of the responses people have made regarding The Bible. Things such as creation in 6 days; people take it two different ways, literally or with a liberal approach(I personally think it was a metaphor for millions of years, not to mention God is not bound by time so that right there shows that it's a metaphor). The Bible is full of metaphors and anaologies, it's a book that was created for even the most simple minded to understand. Now if God were to explain every process The Bible would be of infanint length.

The idea that entropy removes the possibility of life evolving is absurd. Life may be internally ordered but it removes energy from its immediate environment and creates excess heat and noise. This gives life a total positive entropy effect on the universe not the opposite.

I wanted to comment on some of the responses people have made regarding The Bible. Things such as creation in 6 days; people take it two different ways, literally or with a liberal approach(I personally think it was a metaphor for millions of years, not to mention God is not bound by time so that right there shows that it's a metaphor). The Bible is full of metaphors and anaologies, it's a book that was created for even the most simple minded to understand. Now if God were to explain every process The Bible would be of infanint length.

Take soem linguistics classes, study hebrew, and then your argument goes away. Or jsut ask anyone who udnerstands the usage of the word 'yom' aka 'day' when tis used with mornign and evening.

Whatever is said here does not matter cause people see what they want to see and believe what they want to believe and the chances of anyones argument changing views or belief systems of others with one or to comments or explanations is not going to happen ... so what then ??

I'll try and middle this ... I believe that it requires alot more faith in order to support the evolution theory and at the end of the day supports Hollywood more than science itself.

The idea of a creator whatever way one wants to look at it seems to give millions of people a sense of belonging and purpose ..

So then .. we all will die one day .. and if that's where it ends so be it the evolutionists and creationists have nothing to looose or gain .. dust we will become

BUT if there is a devine power that created us and this time matrix that we share with all the beautiful and magnificent living things .. then ... there will uuhhm be a few surprizes !! hehehee

Clearly we are before yet another instance of the post-Enlightentment scientistic ideology, intent on the rape of nature for profit, and used to support some of the worlds most disgusting politics. Behind all these unfounded theories of blind watchmakers is simply a refusal to acknowledge that the range of our knowledge is limited. There are plenty of things we will simply never know about our world. How life arose (if it ever did, of course; it could have been around forever for all we know) and why it is so diverse and similar is simply one of them.

But the scientists, in their drive to "understand", control, and bend nature to their will, will have none of that. And since science is performed by those in power, it will be used to maintain the status quo, building flimsy story upon flimsy story upon flimsy story to keep the people down

#4 is not completely true. However the second law of thermodynamics is that entropy always increases, this is not always the case. Reactions will occur if free energy is negative (so in simple religion fundamentalist terms: if it produces more heat that organization [opposite of chaos] then the reaction will occur).

Here's what I've got for evolution. The concept of the fossil layer being built up less-sophisticated first does not leave an explaination for any outliers. Though I cannot name any. One thing that confuses me, and I see as a flaw in religion, specifically deitized ones,is: Where did this metaphysical force come from? Saying that this force has always been is simply not sensical.Another thing; why do deformities happen? Why are there inferiorities in humanity to other species? Why are there inherent flaws in all life(or parhaps almost all life) such as aging or appendicitis. Why did the universe exist for so long without humans in it? In an earlier post, it is mentioned that there is an 8000000:1-like chance that a single strand of DNA can form, or whatever. Now think of the sheer size of the galaxy; then the universe. Definitely not unlikely that at least one planet (ours) has life on it that was developed from DNA strands that mutated and caused new characteristics that help it thrive, etc.

I also have some points for creationism, deitism, etc..Say, the universe is an anomaly in what is almost certainly nothing. How and why did the universe occur? The formation of DNA, etc. may increaase in likelyhood if acted upon by an external force, such as a deity.

As an agnostic, I will only believe in a deity if he/it/her presents its/her/his-self to me or scientific evidence is found.

‘Live a good life. If there are gods and they are just, then they will not care how devout you have been, but will welcome you based on the virtues you have lived by. If there are gods, but unjust, then you should not want to worship them. If there are no gods, then you will be gone, but will have lived a noble life that will live on in the memories of your loved ones.’

---Marcus Aurelius

Anyway.

Intelligent design is wrong for a number of reasons. The reason for intelligent design that I hear most often is that "it is impossible that we could have evolved purely by chance". I must respectfully disagree. Everything is possible - even your God. Yet what these people fail to realise is that there may have been infinite universes, infinite chances for this one, unique planet to have occurred. Before the Big Bang, there may have been other universes. It is thought that many universes currently exist along side our own. This means that there is infinite chances of our universe happening. I once heard a person say "It is a million to one chance that our universe could have been created by the collision of two particles". Once again, in a place where there is no time, there are infinite chances of an infinite number of things to happen - technically, this universe has had infinity to be created.

What scares me most is not how mislead you truly are, but how some of you come across as being intelligent. I do not consider myself intelligent, but in this instance, I have complete and utter faith in the fact that you are wrong.

I think everyone should really ponder over why they believe what they do. Are you stuck in a paradigm? A good argument considers all sides of the equation. The people on here who are claiming that the other 'side' is the one who must debunk them cannot be sound in their own arguments if they did not objectively falsify everything else.

The points listed in the top ten use incorrect science. I think one should consider Occam's razor and better understand the complexities of the fossilization process.

Also, in regards to the argument that you should be a Christian instead of an atheist because it's a safer bet is just very illogical at best. The odds are still heavily against you that you're right in your beliefs. There are many religions and also many sects within those religions who all say that you must do as they say or you'll suffer eternally. "Hell is created by Christians for Christians."

The thing about creationism from a scientific perspective is that it basically involves repeating the same debunked claims over and over and over, and pretending that they haven't been refuted hundreds or thousands of times.

Both evolution and creation are matters of faith. You can't say that you were there for either one, but you can say that you believe in one. That's faith. Believing the unseen and really the three laws of thermodynamics and the law of cause and effect contradict evolution.

Well, it doesn't matter what any of us think is true, as long as we remember The theory of Evolution is being applied in Biological labs everyday around the world. Until those who value religion over science finally prove this theory wrong, we must deal with are current and upcoming advances........

great article! and just pointing out to the evolutionist's who commented at the top, you say that the world could never be created in 6 days... i completely agree with you and i think most christians would. you are getting 6days from the bible im guessing but 6 days is not the correct translation from hebrew to english. and its not 6 its 7 7 in the bible doesnt mean 7 like we look at it. the 7 tribes of isreal for example 7. which means that these "days" dont have a time limit they could be millions of years on they could be an hour we dont know but im outting my guess on the millions of years

Just some info. Genesis is not the bible's account of the creation of "everything". It is the rebuilding of an already existing earth in preparation for the comeing of man. Where it says the earth was void and empty actually translate to "in a state of decay" and "laid waste to". Something can not be in a state of decay or laid waste to unless it previously existed in a non decayed state and was whole. Further, 6 days refer to "God" days which are 1000 years each. Essentially God repaired the earth after a catastrophy over a period of 6000 years and rested another 1000. The Bible gives no account as to how long ago prior to this event he made the earth, animals, universe, angels, etc.

Hey, Toad734, interesting note on the Major Flaw of Democracy. As an aside, America was originally a Republic, the founding fathers feared unchecked democracy, and The People don't know best, so we need HAL9000 for president, since any man (or woman) is just a people

1. Random mutations from things like the sun create minor differences. Over MILLIONS to BILLIONS of years these get refined by natural selection. Which creates pretty well adapted beings, but not perfect, as you can see by the many imperfections in creatures that an intelligent design would not have. Such as a nerve that goes out of it's way to get to a very short distance.

2. This worked best. Before it the genetic material was most likely RNA, but DNA was better so those creatures survived and had more offspring and dominated. It's easily possible, again after Millions of years.

3. Do you not get MILLIONS AND BILLIONS OF YEARS!?! An amoeba did not just one day evolve into a Human like a Pokémon!

4. I have no idea what you're saying here, so I can't really make a point for or against this.

5. That's because evidence is found and automatically disputed by creationists. What evidence do creationists have? The Bible? About disputed evidence...

6. Humans didn't evolve from apes. They evolved from the same thing apes evolved from. It's called a common ancestor, it's not different!

7. Radioactive dating is accurate enough. Can you really say that the earth is only about 6,000 years old?

8. And I suppose we'll find a use for gill slits that are on fetuses of all mammals but disappear within a couple of weeks.OR a reason whales have fingers and hips.

9. Wut.Evolution does not say life started from spontaneous generation. The theory is that electricity from lightning interacted with gasses to produce amino acids. Lipid bubbles (like little soap bubbles) got these and started over millions of years to get more complex to the point of having RNA and then later better DNA. Eventually these became living organisms.

10. Again, evolution is a theory. The scientific method can give a lot of evidence for evolution however...

Number 4 is just plain wrong. You state that both closed and open systems always increase in entropy. This is true for closed systems (entropy will either stay the same or increase) but it is completely false for open systems. Refrigerators wouldn't work if open systems couldn't move to a lower entropy state. Since the earth itself is an open system (sun provides energy), you have this wrong.

There are plenty of examples in nature where spontaneous ordering occurs without an intelligent hand. The natural formation of periodic crystals in the earth, the spontaneous magnetization of iron, etc. are just a couple examples of order spontaneously appearing from disorder. If the free energy of such a configuration is lower than the disordered state, then it forms. No intelligence necessary. Once you admit this is possible (which it is, it's observed all around us), then it's inevitable that hot dust clouds in space, through the force of gravity, condense into stars and planets. Once again, no intelligence necessary.

Here are some of my questions to evolutionists. If evolution was a process that took over more than a billion years and it was a gradual sequence from one species to another, then shouldn't there be almost an infinite number of different animals in between? Generally evolution is drawn out with a line connecting one species to another. Well I've always wondered since evolution is just like that line, like how a infinite number of dots create a line, the evolutionary process does so too. How is it that we can only find so few a number of "evidence" in this graduation. Where is the species right behind us? And if we were to discuss evolutionary theory in terms of biology, then technically nobody is equal. Why do people who don't believe in equality to begin with complain about the inequality depicted in the Bible per say? Inequality is an innate characteristic of evolution is it not? Some are just given the opportunity to live and others aren't. This is the natural law and yet people embrace this concept but deny a major characteristic. If you do take evolution to be true and believe that the world is unequal then I can't say much since then your logic isn't flawed. But I do wish for people to understand that I am referring to biological inequality, not social. Some are just better off than others. Some are meant to die. Am I trying to make it look like a horrible concept? No. I am just following through with what evolution pertains.

I hope people understand that I am not trying to belittle anyone. Just mentioning this since some one I talked to about this did take it quite emotionally. I'm just stating that at least people should be consistent within their thought and it does frustrate me when there are countless atheists who believe that there is any meaning at all in anything.

The idea of a fact is whether something is observable or not. Evolution is not an observable phenomenon apparently and it never will be considering the nature of the process. Therefore, it is basically a process too vast and massive for our limited perceptions to completely know. Therefore, we cannot say this is fact. We can say it is convincing. But that's as far as it goes. People might argue well what about God? We don't know. But we believe. That's the point in faith. If it is something one can prove, then we can't call it faith anymore now can we? But the sad fact is that the evolutionists (who are atheists) have the disadvantage. Believers function upon faith. Not necessarily logical but believable apparently. Evolutionists (who are atheists) function under definite logic. They NEED everything to fit in perfectly to determine its fact. They have only apparently come to a 98% certain conclusion through the apparently impeccable method of logic and science. Well then obviously if the method was so perfect and pristine, one cannot simply just round up the 98% to a 100%. It stays there accurately at 98%. In other words, until they find that missing 2%. It should still remain a theory, based upon their method of reasoning.

This debate seems rather simply a matter of how we approach the topic. Evolution is a very convincing theory, not a proven fact. Some individuals here have attempted to treat it as such, whilst others seem already convinced. I think that the main flaw in the evolutionist side istheir radical denial of all divinity. Although some within their camp are open-minded, the majority are weighed down with an activist attitude of trying to exclude all mention or suggestion of a higher power(unless its E.T.- that they can accept). I find it fascinating that they are so blindly against the idea of a God, refuting the vast amounts of evidence. (If you want to know what I mean, look around- every force in nature that science has yet to explain and most that it has already explained do nothing to disprove an intelligent design, and often point more and more towards it). The inexplicable resolve of evolutionists to discredit religion is in and of itself evidence of some influence acting upon them and leading them on to do so. Creationists might call it "the devil." But whatever the source of their motives may be, it seems to be most illogical. Even from an atheist's perspective, the ultimate goal should be finding an answer to death- a way to avoid the demise of a human being permanently- or in other words, achieve immortality. However, evolutionists so often seem to depend upon their imminent decease as a means of enforcing natural selection and improving the species. The value of a single human is very small from a Godless perspective. In fact, the value of the entire race is diminished to nothing unless you acknowledge an eternal purpose behind it all. If there is no eternal purpose, then the logical goal is to achieve one, rather than let a lifetime of experiences, knowledge and emotions be lost to decay and disorder. Seeing as the Christian religion offers a theory that involves immortality and eternal purpose, it should be the continual quest of science not to blindly disprove it, but rather to see if it is in fact a legitimate solution. So far, nothing has been offered that can officially discredit it, although some false religions have been clearly proven to be simply usurpation by money-hungry or mentally ill/diluted individuals. This is not my attempt to discredit evolution- rather to express the illogicality of current actions taken by the majority of it's political proponents.

hey great article about evolution, iv never really bought evolution however iv never had exact scientific theory's as to why so i sometimes doubted myself seeing as so many hundreds of people who believe in evolution try to bash me when i say evolution sounds like crap, however now reading your article its amazing, great job, now its so clear to me evolution did not happen, people can say what they want but they cant denie the coin flipping example a swell as your others, please feel free to email me, im going to save this article and show people

Actually quite a few of your propositions are wrong. For example, entropy as you describe it is how it acts in a closed system, which Earth most definitely is not. There are numerous examples of transitional fossils that are not disputed; one of the best known is therapsid reptiles to mammals. There are numerous examples of mutations adding to genetic information--this is how the information gets passed on through the generations, after all. As for the dating methods, multiple dating methods are often used for the same materials, and the varying methods in most cases come within a geological stone's throw of each other. Mostly the points you mention are the same ones dragged out for years not only without much basis in fact, but which science are also constantly re-disproving.

Hello all.Evolution is always being disproved as new facts come into play. So is intelligent design.

In favour of evolution, there's obviously the point that you can't really expect a fully formed human being to poof onto the Earth by some kind of magic like with Intelligent Design. As we all know, that violates almost all the laws of physics. Rebuttal that all you want, I'm just pointing that out.

But in favour of Intelligent Design, there's a hole in Evolution. Life can't just appear from rocks getting rained upon, without life starting first. (to the best of our knowledge so far)

Anyways, my point is that there are a lot of holes in both arguments and if no new evidence comes out soon, evolution vs. ID will last forever. P.S. I am sort of more biased towards evolution, because it doesn't suggest us being poofed by magic onto Earth.

I Read every single comment, Oh Man that was long. I've Tried to Accept Evolution into Religion but it Doesn't seem Logical. To Clarify some points: Space is Infinite, the space the universe occupies is not. The Universe Was created from definite amount of matter. Therefore the amount of possibilities is vast but not infinite, so you can't say "THERE HAS TO BE ANOTHER PLANET LIKE OURS OUT THERE (because I think the possibilities are endless)". In order to have Life, You had to take into consideration: galactic habitable zone, a central star and planetary system having the requisite character, the circumstellar habitable zone, the size of the planet, the advantage of a large satellite, conditions needed to assure the planet has a magnetosphere and plate tectonics, the chemistry of the lithosphere, atmosphere, and oceans, the role of "evolutionary pumps" such as massive glaciation and rare bolide impacts. Because Evolution can't happen without life, make life happen first.

i read most of it but zoned out quite soon due to the repetitions, no side is willing to budge, theres no point discussing if noone is willing to take on board someone elses point. What if the real problems lie in solving current issues. Since no1, will ever know the truth till the end keep your personal beliefs personal and do right by others, you wont change another persons opiions unless they will to be changed, oh also if your watching tv or staring at this screen to long, you've already sold your integrity. Stop using and trusting media and form your own beliefs, help people and respect life .... oh yeah sorry for all the typos too :P

1. Non-Sequitar or Comparing apples to oranges. You can't compare non-living man made things to living matter affected by chemical processes. Those don't need a watchmaker.

2. You already believe high information content can always exist, otherwise explain where god came from...who created god? You can't cherry-pick your own logic.

3. Yes they have. Mutations can both add and subtract information. It has been shown and proven, you justchoose to ignore or not research those because you can't fathom your god might be a delusion.

4. I believe the law of thermodynamics is related more specifically to energy, not as much matter. But if you want to assume it does, just because we evolve, doesn't mean our bodies don't lead to disorder. They in fact do...it's called death. And we decompose.

5. I love this argument. A fossil is EXTREMELY RARE. most bones decompose or in rare circumstances are preservedby, mudslides, tarpits, volcanoes and the likes. We have found TONS of transitional fossils dating Millions of years backThe fact that you see the 150 million years of transitional fossils, and then DEMAND the 900million year fossil or else evoltionis flawed is just ridiculous. That would be the equivalent of saying, Ford Explorers are fully functioning automobiles, but the ford model T doesn't because I've never seen one driving down the road.

6. That's like, your opinion, man. Yes the "Ape like fossil is clearly an ape" because it was. We descended from an ape like ancestor.

7. They are actually QUITE reliable. It's easy. You take an object of known age, (lets say a vase from ceasar's palace) and carbon date it.If the date comes up close to the known age, it is presumably reliable. You can also test using several methods, and if all point to the same ageall the methods would appear to be correct. And the flaws of radiometric dating are known, and taken into consideration when testing things nearhydrothermal vents and volcanoes. Otherwise, for the most part, the earth hadn't been over 300 degrees for a long long time.

8. You are right. Devolution occurs. See 3. Both occur, and your example of the eyes in a blind animal, is a perfect example. They adapted to fit the environment.

9. You are confused. Evolution is not said to have begun anywhere. We don't know that. You are thinking of ABIOGENISIS. which is a completely different theory. Evolution is STRICTLY regarding the changes in existing life.Remember, CREATIONISTS are the ones that believe something came from nothing, so how is abiogenisis far fetched to you?

10. Macro evolution occurs. It is observable. We have seen it in hundreds of cases over the last 40 years. Again, you just chose not to do theresearch, cause you are coming to this complex theory with a closed mind.

For all you out there, don't challenge something you haven't researched and studied. Don't quote mine because it fits your belief. Use your "god given" brains.And for all you evolutionists, don't be discouraged by these tards. The Heliocentric theory as well as the earth being round took hundreds of years before the world accepted itlong after it was provable by mathmatics, and observation. Those are simple concepts compared to evolution, which has only been around a century, with most provable informationobserved in the last 50 years. Let's just hope it doesn't take us 400 years to spread this truth and pray religious zealots don't run the world and start burning evolutionists at the stake for Hersaylike they did in those days.

I have seen miracles... I have seen blind people who seek Jesus and are healed, I've seen deaf people being healed and then hear themselves cry for the first time, I am not under any illusions... If you seek God, you WILL find Him, He will give you the answers you need... please E-Mail me if you want to hear true testimonies of people who were dead (literally, for 4 days) and were brought back to life because in Jesus Name there was Healing.

Please do not use 'Pascal's Wager' as an argument for believing in creationism. I could just as easily point out the fact that you are not Islamic is sending you to hell. I guess believing in Christianity will boost your chances of not going to hell to 1/100000000 instead of 0/100000000. Mutations have not been directly observed? Bacteria develop resistance to drugs all the time. I have a birthmark on my left arm. Siamese twins exist. Some animals are albino even though their parents are not. Humans do not contract the Black Plague often because we are the descendants of those who survived the plague. Expand these mutations over a long period of time and you can go from amoeba to human. For example, we now know that faces-the familiar configuration of two eyes, one nose, and one mouth-are because dogs, cats, birds, many others, and of course us, come from a shared ancestor. Otherwise we might all be intelligent jellyfish. Carbon dating might have some flaws, but they are not huge. It is generally accepted in the scientific community that the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Carbon dating on the moon suggests that the moon is slightly younger. The moon has not been volcanically active in a long while. The earth is not 5000 years old.

There is a reason 99% of scientists are not religious. Religion is an absolute joke and the intellectuals of the world laugh at you. too many things disprove what you say, i couldnt include it in this. this is probably one of the better videos. and thats fact. its called genetics. SORRY

"If Earth and the universe were only 6,000 years old, we would only be able to see stars with a maximum distance of 6,000 light-years, otherwise the light would not have had time to reach us.

Let’s put this in context. The Milky Way galaxy is approximately 100,000 light-years across, with our solar system about 28,000 light-years from the center. This puts us about 22,000 light-years from our galaxy’s outer edge.

If the universe were only 6,000 years old, we would see only a fraction of the 200 billion stars in just OUR galaxy since light from others would not have had enough time to reach us!

Of course, you have seen countless pictures of stars near Earth. There are amazing images of some of the estimated 125 billion galaxies. Of these, 3,000 are visible and can be anywhere from 80,000 to billions of light-years away. Light from the most distant galaxies had to have traveled for billions of years before it reached Earth. Of course, for light to travel billions of years there had to have been a universe for billions of years!"

The earth is NOT 6000 years old. I AM a Christian. BILLIONS of years took place between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2. If this is taken into account, the majority of these comments do not apply. The majority of you at the top of the comments list are also ignoring Pangaea, which has blatant support in Genesis. The tower of Babel sound familiar?

Also, the billions of years between genesis 1 and two also account for pre-modern-human life. I.e. the "Cambrian," "Pre-cambrian," and every other strata layer geologists know of before the modern man era.

Also, whoever said "The animals were created for man... God must be a Chatty Kathy" or whatever he said, you fail to remember that man was created on the sixth day. All of the other modern animals were created before the sixth day.

And the Bible does NOT say that life did not exist before those six days, all it says is "The earth was without form," which, has been previously pointed out to be a mistranslation, actually meaning "The earth has decayed." That, too, could explain countless numbers of fossils found pre-dating modern man.

The website I aforementioned has awesome information on this subject. I recommend the read.

In it you will find information on the struggle between Lucifer and God. Lucifer was jealous of God, so he sought to destroy what he created. He also "Fell like lightning" (Luke 10:18). Kinda reminds me of an "astroid" falling from the sky, destroying almost all life, doesn't it? There's really nothing scientific about that last sentence, but it's a thought that I think should be considered.

I also commend the explaination of God existing outside of our dimension. One cannot be bound by what one creates, unless he chooses to do so. Once he chooses to do so, however, he loses control. That is common sense. God created the Physical, so he is outside of Physical limits. Therefore, one cannot put a Physical limitation on any "Intelligent Designer." That being said, Atheists, please stop being so close-minded and Christians, please stop being so arrogant.

Also, space might be infinite; However, one cannot observe the infinity of space, so one cannot conclude that to be fact. However, the universe IS NOT infinite, and has been proven to be falling into NEGATIVE entropy, slowly dying because it is expanding. That's neither here or there, however. What is relevant is that since the universe is NOT infinite, there were NOT an infinite number of possibilities to eventually come up with life from no life.

Also, some of you are confusing microevolution for macroevolution. Get your theories straight. I feel that even the OP got these two terms mixed up sometimes. MICROevolution is the phenomena that has been witnessed in the past fourty years, NOT MACROevolution. The very definition of MACROevolution says nobody can witness macroevolution in their lifetime, because it happens over billions of years.

Also, I'd like to point out that EVERY major religion has a great flood theory covering the entirity of the earth. That can really only mean one thing: there has to be at least some basis of truth in it.

Ok, I know this post is like... uber-old, and I know somebody is going to point out some sort of flaw somewhere in my arguement, but you do what you do. I'll give my best to give you an answer.

Well, I'm not really interested about creationism vs evolution but I think Higgs Boson disproves the ninth reason. The first reason it's easy to disprove (in my opinion): just take any human being, he/she is an "irreducibly" complex system but he/she evolved from a sperm, a very simple organism (I hadn't thought about it deeply LOL). It'd be interesting to argue about the other 8 points but it seems an endless discussion and I'm not an expert about these issues (and I don't speak English properly haha). Anyway it's just my opinion

Btw, Mr. Intelligent, it's spelled "while". I'm starting to question whether or not you can even read.

Also, based on the link you posted (which doesn't work), I'm assuming that you couldn't think of anything "wile" reading the article and thus, rather than coming up so much as a semblance of an original, rational thought, attempted to post a completely off-topic video clip. Well done, sir. You've made a complete moron of yourself. Again, well done.

Congratulations you found a misspelled word... and one doesn't need to have an original thought in order to see the flaws in this article. In fact this article isn't even original thought, it's just rehashing the same tired argument. There is a clear link between us and our ancestors,anyone that's ever taken a high school science class could tell you that. In fact the only reason why I found this article is because I'm writing a paper for my college human evolution class and was trying to find the flaws in Darwin's theory of evolution in order to write counterpoints as to add depth and meaning to a research paper. And only reason why I tried to bring a little humor into this is because there is no way to argue God and science. It is an impossible argument.By the way the like works... just copy and paste it.

How on earth can you dispute the 'dating' of fossils of up to 3 million years ago. Theres a scientific technique known as carbon dating which allows the bone to be dated. Also, when its said of the 'flood' that the earth was one interconnected land mass 4000 years ago, its becoming ridiculous and unsustainable.. your trying to push against the accepted scientific evidence of history, then disprove to me the dinosaurs, the adaption of live to different enviroments outwit they're natural home. That in its own right can be regarded as an evolutionary step. If a mother species is placed from one habitat to another, then it adapts to that enviroment, it's young is then born into this enviroment with a grasp of life there and with knowledge of past instincts from the mother true habitat. After generations features can begin to accommodate the new habitat, in itself holding the identity of the first mother species but now with slightly distinct features. The call of where are All the transistional species now is irrelevant as its not about an ape turning 30 years old and boom, human. Its adaption which leads to every generation having a little more knowledge than the last which permits life to take such an array of paths, while being able to find itself looking back and interlocking with another species.

it is democrats who smear troops. republicans love the men and women who keep this country safe. democrats continue to pass laws to try and change this country into a lawless immoral society without taking into consideration the consequences n. if you want to live in a socialist country than there are many already in existence, move there instead of trying to destroy our democratic one.

major flaw of socialismtake everything from everyone, so no one has anything! capitalism allows me to keep most of what I work for, socialist s want to take that away and give it to people who don't work. our society already supports the poor better than socialists countries. why don't you move to a socialist country if you love their way of doing things, instead of using the freedom you enjoy here while trying to dismantle the very system that allows you to keep what you have. if all you jokers who think we should give up what we have would give what you have to the poor we wouldn't have poor, except you! those evil corporations you complain about put money in your pocket and donate billion to help others, Joe much do you give?

when it comes to evolution i understand being skeptical but there is evidence that we can see now. you can see single cell organisms evolving over a day in a test tube when you put them into a new environment. It would only make sense that we more complex organisms to can do this but it would take us more than a day. A catapiller can become a butterfly in a few days. evoution says a chimpanze can become a human in 100, million years.isn't that reasionable? Also it is true under normal circumstances evolution could not have created all the organisms that exist or have existed but you have to remember a few things. When it comes to DNA all the components did not come together in a second the components over time came together. There were elements that combines to become compounds then anime acids then short strands of RNA then it build up into DNA, it didn't come together all at once. This is why it took over 3 billion years to have the first bacteria, it took a long time. After these first basic forms of life were created it took much longer for the human eye to be created, millions of years more, it didn't happen in a second. After we had the building blocks we had larger orgamisms such as dinosaurs. the reason we have so many different species is because several confrrmed global natural disasters occured, killed a large amount of species all over the earth. after each of these global disasters killed the dominant species there was a lot of room for new evolution which allows there to be so many different species throughout time.More important than any of this we must remember that to have a conversation is "not to be right but to find the right answer". if one side of the conversation has a point acknowledge it, if the other side has a point acknowledge it because in order to change the world for the better we must acknowledge it. so don't be biased to one side or the other and if no conclusion can be made go with the one that has the most evidence towards it. if you find more evidence later that supports the other go towards the other.

Everything has a counter part, this is how the universe works and it's a fact. Light/darkBig/smallSmart/dumbSharp/dullRich/poor etc....

Nothing can survive without the other corresponding part so that means physical/spiritual .

For some reason you have a light lit in your body, and you know of your consciousness. So the real question for the evolution people is how did the spirit evolve?If life did start from a single cell with no awareness that means something intervened. Scientist will say there is a natural way it could have happened but there is no evidence for this. How did emotions evolve? When did it evolve? Where did the thought of moral absolutes evolve? Everything that involves the spirit within us defies physical evolution.

I Love science, but it hasn't even tapped into 0.1% of our existence yet people will believe and follow scientist just like a religious group.

How did language evolve? From oooh hoo ahhhh ahh to Hi how are you?

Why are scientist so sure that mathematics exist when it's just a human derived idea? We see the world as we are not as it actually is.

Science claims there's such thing as time. When there only is a eternal now. How can the past exist when it is finished with? How can the future exist in time when it hasn't happened yet? We are living in the same now as the dinosaurs once were? No? Where is the proof of time other than our own bias perception of reality? Oh and on the Dino topic how can scientist say which fossils had feathers? Or what there skin was like? Or the temperature on the earth during any era?

With dating methods not valid because of to many inconsistencies pass a couple hundred thousand years or so how are scientist determining time frames to billions of years ago and categorizing different eras or what dinosaurs lived in what era? The age of the planet?

Where is proof one species can eventually become a new species altogether entirely?

Why do scientist say brain size matters when the raven can solve puzzles made for 6-7 year old humans, and make 5-7 different tools and calculate distance and have facial recognition up to 2-3 years? The raven is smarter than a monkey and his brain is the size of a pea?

We have all the organic compounds that scientist say dwelled on primordial earth and we can re create temperatures. So why can we still not make life from non living compounds?

Forget evolution theory how can chemicals fuse together so perfectly to create other compounds? If you look at a h20 compound fuzing with a hydrogen compound then fuzing with another compound on a piece of paper drawn out it clearly fits perfectly? Clearly a design.

These scientist are amusing to me because the chances of earth being exactly to the degree lined up with the moon and for the sun to be perfectly distanced from earth to create a soup that would make a single cell then to all sorts of stuff like dinosaurs, then the chance of two or three mass extinctions of dinosaurs that gave primordial man a chance at survival, then the chances for the one chromosome or cell to mutate to give us intelligence etc etc... The chances of us being here scientifically as me and you reading this is pretty well impossible. I couldn't put enough zeros on this page to have the correct percent, it would be like a trillion, billion zeros then a . Then another billion zeros then finally a 1. What atheist believe is just as impossible as any religion theory. No?

And just to clear everything up I'm not for or against evolution or god. I'm not going to believe any of it with so many holes in both.

But all I know is in my heart I know rape, and things like child abuse are wrong. I am not a animal. (although some people still are)...